Rick Santorum Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Semper_Zelare
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
And this is what it boils down to for me: Santorum made a political decision based on a calculation that having control of the Senate would help get Bush’s judicial nominations approved - such as Alito and Roberts.
I would like to point out that this sort of compromise, while I may not like it, is totally allowable and is harmony with Catholic teaching. It does not make him less pro-life because he chooses a means that I would not choose. I think the attack on his pro-life position has been unfair. There is nothing wrong with being a total purist on such issues, but we are also allowed to do the best that we think will work.
 
The problem is you’ll never have a perfect catholic candidate, and you’ll never have a perfect catholic country or society this side of Eden. In fact, last I checked, even the Catholic churches I go to are filled with people who don’t live up to the standard you seem to expect from the government.

I could go into the litany of reasons why it is unreasonable to expect a mere few years of GOP rule in the house, senate and presidency to result in the outlawing of abortion, but I think you really know how the supreme court works - you can’t just fire a justice and replace them with orthodox catholics. You have to wait for a vacancy, and even then you don’t know for sure how they’ll vote. The old, “the GOP has had 30 years to outlaw abortion and they’ve failed” argument is false, and doesn’t take into consideration political reality. But, we have a chance. I believe we could be looking at a challenge soon if we can get one more good justice in there. Wouldn’t you want to be able to organize and pressure your state legislators to vote like catholics as we attempt to take on states that keep abortion legal? That can’t happen unless we overturn Roe V wade.

Ishii
The idea that the Supreme Court is the key to stopping abortion is one of the fundamental flaws in the strategy the pro-life movement has taken. It absolves the executive and legislative branches of their responsiblities.

Overturning Roe wouldn’t end legalized abortion anyway…it was legal in many circumstances and in many places before Roe which many people are ignorant of or forget.

Overtuning Roe would be good, but it’s not the endgame many people seem to think it is.

Pax
 
You’re right, but If you took that approach to evangelization, you’d find yourself with very few converts. On the other hand, if you start out with the basics, and go from there, I think you’d have a better time of it. Wouldn’t you think that if a hardened abortion supporter like say, Kate Michelman or Faye Wattleton came to you door and said, " I am not sure that I agree with you on outlawing abortion when the life of the mother is in danger, but I now see that having abortion clinics on every block is evil, and I want to work to overturn Roe V Wade and then work with the states." That it would be a huge breakthrough? What would you say, " Sorry, not good enough. You don’t conform to the catholic position so go back to Planned Parenthood." ???

Ishii
You seem to be misunderstanding me. I’ve never said we only need perfect candidates. And I’ve never suggested telling anyone to go to Planned Parenthood.

As far as evangelization goes, I think the reality of Hell needs to emphasized much more both when we speak within the Church and to those currently outside it. If you’re friend was drunk and about to stagger out into the highway would you try to warn/stop him? Or would you bite your tongue because you don’t want to hurt his feelings? Which is the loving thing to do?

Hell exists whether we want to believe in it or not. That reality is part of why I don’t agree with using evils to fight other evils. Murdering the body is a great wrong. Murdering the soul is a greater one.

Pax
 
Let me help you. THIS is the Ron Paul thread. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=629999

Your rant somehow ended up on the Rick Santorum thread.

FYI - Everyone is entitled to their own political opinions,.
Evidently you dont know how things works in CAF now days. ALL canidate threads are Ron Paul Threads. As in “your canidate sucks becuase he is not Ron paul”. This proposition is advanced by the same 4 or 5 Paul supporters and inundates every political thread making meaningfull discussion about the canidates impossible.
 
The idea that the Supreme Court is the key to stopping abortion is one of the fundamental flaws in the strategy the pro-life movement has taken. It absolves the executive and legislative branches of their responsiblities.
You do realize that your view is in opposition to the view of respected and learned leaders of the pro-life movement? Americans United For Life senior counsel Clarke Forsythe put it quite simply:

***“There’s no legal or political alternative to overturning Roe V Wade. It must be done. There can be no legal prohibition of abortion without overturning Roe V Wade.” ***

With all due respect, I will trust his view of the political/legal situation over someone posting on an internet thread.
Overturning Roe wouldn’t end legalized abortion anyway…it was legal in many circumstances and in many places before Roe which many people are ignorant of or forget.

Overtuning Roe would be good, but it’s not the endgame many people seem to think it is.

Pax
Seriously, the “you think overturning Roe V Wade will end all abortions in the country” strawman is getting tiresome. It would be as if I said, " you Ron Paul folks think a simple thumbs up vote in congress and voila! abortion will end in the country." Unfair right? Once again, overturning Roe V Wade puts the issue to the states where I think we’ll have an easier time dealing with legislatures to outlaw abortion than we would dealing with the federal government. Of course, your narrative about the Sanctity of Life Act is a convenient way to say Ron Paul is the authentic pro-life candidate while questioning others’ as ineffective at best, fraudulent at worst.
You seem to be misunderstanding me. I’ve never said we only need perfect candidates. And I’ve never suggested telling anyone to go to Planned Parenthood.

As far as evangelization goes, I think the reality of Hell needs to emphasized much more both when we speak within the Church and to those currently outside it. If you’re friend was drunk and about to stagger out into the highway would you try to warn/stop him? Or would you bite your tongue because you don’t want to hurt his feelings? Which is the loving thing to do?

Hell exists whether we want to believe in it or not. That reality is part of why I don’t agree with using evils to fight other evils. Murdering the body is a great wrong. Murdering the soul is a greater one.

Pax
Yes, I would make every effort, physically if possible, to keep my friend safe. But I would not say to a teenager, " if you drink and get drunk you’ll kill yourself." That teenager would blow me off, and rightly so. Once again, do we want to be effective? Save lives (and souls) ? Saying “you’re gonna go ta hell, I tell ya!” might make you feel good that you didn’t compromise and are telling it like it is, but your message will fall on deaf ears.

Getting back to my question, if the head of Planned Parenthood came to you and said, Dan, I am not quite where you’re at with wanting to ban all abortions, but I do think Roe V Wade was the wrong decision and I am ready to speak out against Planned Parenthood and all the evil they do." Would you accept her, in spite of her not being in line with the fullness of the catholic moral teaching on abortion, contraceptives, etc. ?

Ishii
 
I would like to point out that this sort of compromise, while I may not like it, is totally allowable and is harmony with Catholic teaching. It does not make him less pro-life because he chooses a means that I would not choose. I think the attack on his pro-life position has been unfair. There is nothing wrong with being a total purist on such issues, but we are also allowed to do the best that we think will work.
You’re right. Criticizing Santorum for endorsing Spector is valid. Saying he is not sincerely pro-life is unfair. Did he miscalculate? Maybe, but its hard to say if Toomey would have won. At the time I was pretty upset that Santorum did this. I understand his strategy though, and I do think Alito and Roberts are pretty good choices for Supreme court justice. I just wish some of the posters here wouldn’t so callously question Santorum’s heart and motives in order to support their candidate.

Ishii
 
You’re right. Criticizing Santorum for endorsing Spector is valid. Saying he is not sincerely pro-life is unfair. Did he miscalculate? Maybe, but its hard to say if Toomey would have won. At the time I was pretty upset that Santorum did this. I understand his strategy though, and I do think Alito and Roberts are pretty good choices for Supreme court justice. I just wish some of the posters here wouldn’t so callously question Santorum’s heart and motives in order to support their candidate.

Ishii
I appreciate your pointing this out. It helps us pro-Santorum lurkers :coffeeread:defend our positions. 👍
 
Ishii: Overturning Roe v. Wade is a must, but the Supreme Court doesn’t have to be the one to do it. That’s the point. Roe v. Wade only stands as a Court opinion because Congress has not answered the question of when life (and personhood) begins according to the law. If that were defined then Roe v. Wade would effectively be overturned, as even the Supreme Court of the day acknowledged.

This focus on the Supreme Court as the only avenue to overturning Roe v. Wade is severely limiting to the pro-life movement, and is easily manipulated by politicians who seek to advance their careers through the pro-life vote.

Peace and God bless!
 
I appreciate your pointing this out. It helps us pro-Santorum lurkers :coffeeread:defend our positions. 👍
The idea that Santroum is not pro-life is utter nonsense. The only people advanicng this argument are Ron Paul supporters and catholic democrats trying to rationalize their support of pro-abortion canidates.

Senator Santorum has a 100% rating from National right to Life. Ron Pauls rating is 69% .

votesmart.org/interest-group/252/rating/801?of=name
 
I appreciate your pointing this out. It helps us pro-Santorum lurkers :coffeeread:defend our positions. 👍
I am for Santorum too, but I wish all the GOP candidates would refrain from unfair attacks on one another. Someone will win the nomination and face Obama - who needs to be defeated.

Ishii
 
The idea that Santroum is not pro-life is utter nonsense. The only people advanicng this argument are Ron Paul supporters and catholic democrats trying to rationalize their support of pro-abortion canidates.

Senator Santorum has a 100% rating from National right to Life. Ron Pauls rating is 69% .

votesmart.org/interest-group/252/rating/801?of=name
I would expect Democrat catholics do resort to that. What surprised me and disappointed me was the depths to which the Paul supporters stooped - calling him a “so-called” catholic, pro-choice, etc.

Ishii
 
I would expect Democrat catholics do resort to that. What surprised me and disappointed me was the depths to which the Paul supporters stooped - calling him a “so-called” catholic, pro-choice, etc.

Ishii
I may overly sensitive about it, as I have had the same technique directed against me. I couldn’t even stand hearing this directed at Obama when his Christianity was questioned and he was accused of being a Muslim. We tread too closely to the “judge not” rule when we pull out this trick.
 
Ishii: Overturning Roe v. Wade is a must, but the Supreme Court doesn’t have to be the one to do it. That’s the point. Roe v. Wade only stands as a Court opinion because Congress has not answered the question of when life (and personhood) begins according to the law. If that were defined then Roe v. Wade would effectively be overturned, as even the Supreme Court of the day acknowledged.

This focus on the Supreme Court as the only avenue to overturning Roe v. Wade is severely limiting to the pro-life movement, and is easily manipulated by politicians who seek to advance their careers through the pro-life vote.

Peace and God bless!
Are you an attorney? It is my understanding that no branch can overturn a SC decision. If the decision is on a law made by the legislative body, the Congress can modify to change the law to send it back to the SC for review. If this is not correct,would an attorney on this forum enlighten us.
 
Are you an attorney? It is my understanding that no branch can overturn a SC decision. If the decision is on a law made by the legislative body, the Congress can modify to change the law to send it back to the SC for review. If this is not correct,would an attorney on this forum enlighten us.
The Congress sets the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and federal courts. Congress could say that abortion is not something that can be ruled on by the Supreme Court, and abortion would become a state issue again, as it was before Roe v. Wade.

Congress doesn’t have to do anything to the Roe v. Wade ruling specifically.

Peace and God bless!
 
Are you an attorney? It is my understanding that no branch can overturn a SC decision. If the decision is on a law made by the legislative body, the Congress can modify to change the law to send it back to the SC for review. If this is not correct,would an attorney on this forum enlighten us.
Congress cannot “overturn” a SCOTUS decision, but they can enact legislation that would essentially make the decision moot. If the case involves statutory interpretation, then Congress can simply implement legislation (see, e.g., Ledbetter Fair Pay Act enacted after the SCOTUS decision in Ledbetter v Goodyear Tires); if the case involves a Constitutional issue, then Congress would have to amend the Constitution, which would be virtually impossible in today’s political climate (for an example regarding Constitutional amendment, see the 18th and 21st amendments).
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

In just a couple short hours four of the five remaining Republican presidential candidates will participate in the first ever Presidential Prolife Forum, televised beginning at 6:45p EST on C-SPAN and sponsored by Personhood USA.

Everyone in the nation, along with a standing room only crowd at the Hilton Ballroom in Greenville, South Carolina, will get to see pro-lifers Lila Rose, Daniel Becker, and Gualberto Garcia Jones interview GOP candidates Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum.

The only candidate not present will be Mitt Romney, who reportedly had a scheduling conflict.

You can also watch the event live-streamed here:

jillstanek.com/2012/01/tonight-televised-presidential-prolife-forum/

Fox and CNN also plan to report from the event live.
 
I am for Santorum too, but I wish all the GOP candidates would refrain from unfair attacks on one another. Someone will win the nomination and face Obama - who needs to be defeated.

Ishii
Santorum has been the most fair and civil.

Even when he attacks an opponent it has to do with the subject.

Santorum has been attacked the most personally, his wife, his daughter, his dead son, and distorted claims and false reports spinning information that he is a religious nut/fanatic.

The one this week was a theological correspondence – by not even Santorum or anything, and they took that as Santorum staffer believes it is "God’s will that there should not be a woman president ’ :rolleyes:
 
**The only candidate not present will be Mitt Romney, who reportedly had a scheduling conflict.
**
You can also watch the event live-streamed here:

jillstanek.com/2012/01/tonight-televised-presidential-prolife-forum/

Fox and CNN also plan to report from the event live.

A smooth campaign and a smooth politician like Romney having a scheduling conflict?

When he is the most blatant candidate on the pro-life subject. Both complicit and a participant in the Culture of Death in his elected office?

Where there is so much on his record, and evidence that Romney approached his “church” as a bishop on how to present himself , given the pro-choice subject for Massachusetts??

days before the election in a state where social issues are important enough to favor or lose votes??

campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/york-romney-briefed-church-abortion-stance/282721
According to Scott, Romney revealed that polling from Richard Wirthlin, Ronald Reagan’s former pollster whom Romney had hired for the '94 campaign, showed it would be impossible for a pro-life candidate to win statewide office in Massachusetts. In light of that, Romney decided to run as a pro-choice candidate, pledging to support Roe v. Wade,
 
A smooth campaign and a smooth politician like Romney having a scheduling conflict?

When he is the most blatant candidate on the pro-life subject. Both complicit and a participant in the Culture of Death in his elected office?

Where there is so much on his record, and evidence that Romney approached his “church” as a bishop on how to present himself , given the pro-choice subject for Massachusetts??

days before the election in a state where social issues are important enough to favor or lose votes??

campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/york-romney-briefed-church-abortion-stance/282721
Pro-life forum sponsor confirmed Romney had scheduling conflict, didn’t “ditch” event

He does have checkered record when it comes to abortion because he used to be pro choice, but as a governor he had a consistent pro life record. We should be welcoming people who have pro life conversions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top